identity_get_orgs_by_org_id_users

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses pagination semantics (1-based pageStart, default page size, default first page) and an access-policy role table, plus a note that serviceDefinitionId filtering is unsupported. One wrinkle: it claims a default page size of 20 while the schema declares default 128, which is a mild internal inconsistency rather than an annotation contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The deprecation notice and alternatives are correctly front-loaded, but the body mixes a truncated HTML-entity access-policy table with pagination notes, making it noisier than needed. Every sentence is relevant, yet the formatting and truncation hurt readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers pagination, access requirements, deprecation status, and a known parameter limitation. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or decide to avoid it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining the 1-based indexing of pageStart and warning that serviceDefinitionId is not currently honored for CSP filtering. The conflicting page-size default is the only blemish.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get response encapsulating organization users', paginated by pageStart/pageLimit) and even names the HTTP route. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling identity tools, though the name itself (identity_get_orgs_by_org_id_users) is awkward and only clarified by the body text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It is explicitly marked deprecated and points to three replacement endpoints (/cloudapi/1.0.0/users, /users/{{userUrn}}/preferences, /scim/v2/Groups), which is strong when-not-to-use guidance. It does not, however, route to any sibling tool in this catalog by name, so the agent must map API paths to tools itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.